Readers' comments

Jose Carpintero: I agree with you up to a point. In a money economy, social spending by govts on public services(good roads, education, justice system, policing, health,environmental protection etc) which in turn are run efficiently is how you spread benefits to the rest of the population.In turn these public goods help industry to be competitive and thereby make growth possible. Angola, especially Nigeria, has failed to make that possible.Botswana has used the income from the diamond wealth to do what I have said. Mugabe is of course a disaster. This decade appears to be promising for most of Sub-Saharan Africa. If the current trend holds, there is no reason to disbelieve that some evolutionary change is occuring. Once Mugabe is gone, few countries in Africa have rebounded as Zimbabwe will.

Sulwe, evolution would mean that Africa is adapting to thrive in the global environment. When a country like Zimbabwe, which had a functioning economy and democracy, is run to the ground by a dictator, that is not evolution. When countries like Nigeria or Angola use their riches to entrench their elites, instead of pulling their population out of poverty, that is not evolution.

Colonialism never really ended: The White masters where just replaced by Black elites, which neglect their populations with impunity, hiding behind their skin color and their artificial borders.

John Cabot: I disagree that Africans cannot govern or learn to govern better than they do at present. I am the first to agree that most African governments can do better. Europeans were not as good at governing in 1240 as they are in 2008. Think of what has happened in between: nedless wars (e.g. 100 year war between England and France), dictatorships, no franchise for women, anti-semitism,poor justice systems etc. What we admire about governance in Europe has evolved over hundreds of years. Why don't or can't you think that evolution is also going on in Africa?

Colonies were set up and designed to be permanent possessions of the West.After all they were the spoils of conquest. At least that was the original intention. The thought that Africans or the colonised in general would one day seek to determine their own destiny never crossed the minds of the colonisers.To them we were meant to be bossed over by the master race because we had little intelligence. Advice of this sort to colonial govt officials was being rendered by anthropologists and other social scientists trained at elite universities.

I would disagree with you on 'maturity to self-govern'. Prior to colonialism Africans quite comfortably governed themselves although in much smaller and much more homogenous tribal groupings. What colonialism did was disintegrate these units and replace them with colonies (Berlin confrence, 1884) for the sake of gathering the black masses as a labour force to aid the economic exploitation from outside.Modern day African countries are pretty much the remnants of these colonies. They were never by design meant to act as a means through which local Africans were meant to govern themselves and as such many did and still lack the necessary framework to function as competent nations. Many of the civil disputes that have since erupted on the continent can be attributed at least in part to the violent removal of existing governing structures within communities by Colonial authorities and the inability of post-colonial governments to set up, for internal and external reasons,to suitably fill in this vacuum both at the tribal level and at the level of interaction of the various communities within what were externally imposed national boundaries. I will point out again because it cannot be said enough times that colonialism was never about the welfare of the natives of the colonies abut merely a technology through which outsiders were able to capitalise on the economic resources of Africa and other places that suffered under such while by-passing the need to recompense fairly the people inhabiting the lands where these resources were found.

The deal can work, provided the UK and the US make it clear that if the Prime Minister requests a unilateral intervention of foreign forces to preserve the peace, they will step up to the plate. Without this condition, I give the deal 3-6 months

After decades of misrule in every african country the people are better off under colonial rule. They would be better educated, have a higher standard of living and have longer life spans. African countries have not matured enough for self governance. This may sound racist and hard to accept but it is a fact.

Of course Africans know what is good for them, like Europeans, and what they want is to be freed from their dictators. The problem is that, unlike Europeans, people in Africa are hostage of their own governments, which keep themselves in power through the control of all levers of power.

Mwanga, it is not a matter of giving Africa more time. People in Africa were richer 30 years ago than today.

Rome was not built in one day.Zimbabwe and other African nations that Europeans have created in 1885 for us can't be built in one day. We are at the command of them since 1963. While that can't be an excuse I bet that Americans, British, French and Spanish are at the command of their destiny for more than a century.How did white people come into control of 80 per cent of economy and arable lands in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe? One or two decade are not enough to establish economic equilibrium with a minority that is supported by the USA, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and UK.

So is this another example of "African solutions for African problems", Mr. Mbeki? Where the opposition sells out any hope of change in exchange for a few government jobs and salaries? Where Mr. Tsavangirai accepts to behave well under Mugabe so he can take over and continue Mugabe's "work" when he dies?

It is disheartening to see how all these proud African leaders happily accept this parody of democracy in order to keep their personal privileges, as if Africa did not deserve world-class governments...

Just seeing Mugabe's speech confirms how he treats his serfs, as if he personally owned Zimbabwe. He is old, senile, tragically unfunny and downright sinister. The basket of History is impatiently waiting for him.

This is most likely: gridlock, infighting and eventually either the MDC will be corrupted and becomes the same as Zanu-PF, or MDC will leave the government in disgust. In other words, no way in hell is this going to work.I guess Mugabe will end up getting what he wanted. Sometimes I have to give that old geezer some credit. He really is an operator.

A lot of credit has to go to Comrade President Thabo Mbeki and Comrade President Jakaya Kikwete, a lot of pressure was put on them to fight the evil colonialist's battle in Zimbabwe. They stood their ground and because we could see that these two men were representing themselves, when they talk we listen.

From a soldier and a revolutionary's point of view, we have lost a lot of ground in this deal. Our initiative has been blunted and scaling down from our state of combat readiness is an anti-climax.

The most solid gain however, is what I have always said would form the basis of any negotiation, i.e land transferred to the landless black majority from the grubby clutches of the minority white settlers is sacrosanct and that the Defence Forces should never fall under the direct control of the part-timers of the MDC. Defending the country from the enemy (foreign or domestic) is a life and death business whose full scope mere puppets cannot fathom.

Anyone who does not like the compromises made here should understand that the alternative (which can still be put back on the table)would have been worse; TOTAL WAR that just has to run its course until it reaches its most logical conclusion.

It is important for Mugabe to continue to have some power because of the short-term stablitiy of Zimbabwe. Remember that Mugabe is not the real person in control of the country, the Generals have control. They have power to make the country ungovernalbe. Also a large percentage of the Zimbabwean electorate voted for ZANU-PF, whose part in government is important for the short-term stability of Zimbabwe

I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT LEFT FOR ZIMBABWE,HOW CAN THEY ALLOW MUGABE TO BE THE HEAD OF STATE AGAIN.THAT MAN HAS FAILED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY,HE FAILED TO DO HIS WORK.THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN TSVANGIRAI A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT HE HAS FOR THEM OR TRY BY ALL MEANS FOR TSVANGIRAI TO OCCUPY A POSITION ABOVE MUGABE'S.FOR NOW IS EASY FOR MUGABE TO RESIST WHATEVER TSVANGIRAI SUGGESTS.HE MIGHT NOT EVEN RESPECT HIM AT ALL.CAN YOU IMAGINE,A HEAD OF STATE INSULTING ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE WHAT ABOUT HIS JUNIOR[TSVANGIRAI].